Navigate:

No apologies from Club for Growth

'Members of Congress understand what we do and why we do it,' said Chris Chocola. | AP Photo

“What people don’t understand about the Club is, we’re not Republicans. We’re not an arm of the Republican Party. Our job is not to win elections,” the strategist said. “We care about finding a few champions of economic freedom and supporting them to the best of our ability … . The fact that Mourdock lost is not necessarily as big a message as the fact that Richard Lugar lost [to Mourdock in the primary] and every senator understands that.”

Few Republicans believe Plan B went down this week simply because of pressure from outside groups; there were complicated intra-caucus politics at play and a chaotic backdrop of negotiations with the White House.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Still, the rise of big-money outside groups changes the gravitational pressures on incumbent lawmakers at moments like this one. So far, traditional partisan institutions - including many elected officials themselves - have shown little ability to fight back against groups that take on Washington-anointed candidates from the right.

In that department, the Club is in a class by itself, operating in relative isolation and eschewing coordination with the larger world of Republicans super PACs and nonprofit political groups.

And while it has helped produce national GOP stars like Cruz and Rubio, the Club has also ushered into office far more marginal members, such as the trio of congressman – Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, David Schweikert of Arizona and Justin Amash of Michigan – who lost plum committee assignments as a result of their gadfly behavior in the House.

As both critics and supporters agree, the Club is utterly – some say self-indulgently – insensible to the tactical arguments for cut-our-losses proposals like Boehner’s Plan B.

In an email to POLITICO, Norquist shrugged at the notion that the Club and groups like it had effectively outflanked ATR on its ideological home turf.

“Various groups can suggest different strategies than those Boehner and [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell undertook. Free country (more or less),” Norquist said. “Everyone on the center/right understands that the House and Senate GOP leadership have as a goal maintaining the Bush tax cuts in toto and reducing Obama’s spending as much as possible. Everyone also understands that a [Democratic] White House and Senate limit the ability of pro-taxpayer congressmen and senators on the right to win everything today in one fell swoop.”

The common complaint about the Club is that it does not, in fact, accept that premise. Former New York Rep. and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds, said the Club had grown increasingly confrontational and tightly wedded to uncompromising “idealistic positions” that serve as “red meat to the donors.”

The Republican-controlled House refused to vote on a Republican-proposed bill that would have extended the Bush tax cuts for over 99% of taxpayers because they thought it was unfair to million dollar earners.

The Club for Growth is another one of the right wing organizations that is destructive to our economy and our political system. They pursue a non-compromise strategy that is counter to the principals of the Constitution and an economic policy that is counter to a growth economy and competant government. They need to change their name to something that actually represents what they stand for. Try Club for Nonsense; Club for Destruction; or maybe Club for Death, because that would be the result on the economy if their riduculous policies every came to fruition.

I had never heard of this person or is so-called "club." I went to Wiki to learn more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Chocola. He sounds like the typical silver spoon Republican you would expect to hold such views of the way things should be in this country, including a return to the 50s. He never had to struggle much, having his father and then grandfather to fall back on if he couldn't make it on his own. Sounds all to familiar and not really a typical all-American dream story, but a typical all-Republican scheme story.

Now, it's true that the Democrat-controlled Senate actually passed a bill in July that would have extended the Bush tax cuts to 98% of taxpayers (those earning less than 250,000 per year).

http://www.nytimes.com/...

And it's also true that Republicans refused to even vote on their own bill that would have extended the Bush tax cuts to over 99% of taxpayers (those earning less than a million per year) because, if million dollar earners can't have lower taxes, nobody should have lower taxes.

Democrats are at fault because they refuse to recognize that Republicans have a religous aversion to taxing rich people. And you know how Democrats just won't respect people of faith.

Yes BUT if you were to show the Republicans these figures, they would scoff, sniff and say "bah humbug." This figure came from someone on the left. Just like the first debate, you cannot reason with people who can't handle the truth -- let alone understand it. Apart from the 13th amendment, Republicans are always on the wrong side of history.

Better that EVERYONE'S taxes go up than to leave million dollar earners behind!

------------------------------------

That's Obama's sequester for you. Had be bargained in good faith, we could have actually kept the current rates. Thankfully, the GOP already defeated one tax hike in their own ranks. God bless the Tea Party!

Since the real problem is SPENDING, maybe the damned fools in DC will start to address it? There's NO SUCH THING as "spending cuts that take place 3 years from now", and claiming spending cuts 6-10 years down the road is insultingly stupid.

Earth to the GOP. The ONLY spending cuts that you should sign on to are cuts that will take place in the first two years!! Those are the ONLY cuts that will ever happen Learn the lessons of history...please!.

Seems like POLITICO digs every hole, scratches every surface, and goes after every drama when it comes to Republicans. Yet, when it comes to Democrats, it's like they only exist just to criticize the opposition.

So far, POLITICO is silence on:

- Obama's cabinet and Department of Defense officials passing classified information to Hollywood for the Capture of Osama Bin Laden

- John Carry's vicious attacks on the military and his nomination for SoS.

- the Tax Payers losing billions of dollars in the GM debacle at the expense of Obama's terrible business initiative.

And if I had more time, I'd have a larger list of things POLITICO should focus on instead of what they do.

LOL! We both knew what the Marxist Gangster wanted, and he didn't get it. :-) :-) :-)

God bless the Tea Party!!!!

Now for wishful thinking. Obama will manage to get the Democrats to agree to something, and they'll bring that proposal to the floor for debate and a vote. Of course, that MAY be a little too much like DOING THEIR JOB?!! I know, wishful thinking.

Chocola, Keene, LaPierre and Norquist are not statesmen, nor elected leaders. They are nothing but hired guns and shouldn't be given a place at any table where solutions to our nation's problems are sought. They are lobbyists, paid shills, who never let logic get in the way of their thinking or words. The media should quit advancing the views of these cretins who are always looking for a stage, a spotlight or megaphone so they can spew their vomitus views more widely and advance their bosses' mercenary interests. These guys aren't interested in bettering our country or the lives of all Americans; they are rank materialists and profiteers (even if they work for "nonprofit" organizations) interested only in raking in more and more money for themselves and their organizations. As long as Politico and other print or digitalized media (including TV) feature them, the media is part of the problem, not the solution.

Earth to the GOP. The ONLY spending cuts that you should sign on to are cuts that will take place in the first two years!! Those are the ONLY cuts that will ever happen. Learn the lessons of history...please!.

Since the real problem is **SPENDING**, maybe the damned fools in DC will start to address it?

There's NO SUCH THING as "spending cuts that take place 3 years from now", and claiming spending cuts 6-10 years down the road is insultingly stupid. That's the only spending cuts that you'll get from the Democrats.